Watch Louder with Crowder every weekday at 11:00 AM Eastern, only on Rumble Premium!

Journalist Katie Couric tried to bait John Fetterman into admitting that Charlie Kirk did not deserve to be posthumously honored or that flags should not have been flown at half-staff, among other things. Unsurprisingly, she failed.

According to the Daily Caller:

“Do you think that flags should have been flown at half-staff? Do you think his body should have been flown on Air Force Two? Do you think he should have posthumously been given the Presidential Medal of Freedom?” Couric asked. “I think some people felt that that was perhaps over the top in terms of mourning someone like Charlie Kirk. How did you feel about that?”

“I’d say that that was his choice and his prerogative, and that was really entirely up to him,” Fetterman said.

Couric followed up by asking if Fetterman, in hindsight, had problems with Kirk’s rhetoric. The senator responded that he had disagreements with Kirk, but was not especially familiar with his views.

You don’t have to be a radical right-wing extremist to understand that just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a platform. Anyone confident in their ideas shouldn’t have a problem with others exercising their First Amendment freedoms—but clearly, Couric is not confident in hers.

You can disagree with what Charlie believed and still not care whether he was honored by the President. This shouldn’t be controversial, but to some on the left, it’s seen as reprehensible.

“And engaging in a debate and views I strongly disagree on — that’s part of the American democracy. And for me, that would never justify what’s happened,” he said. “And I just chose not to take the opportunity to argue his views after children lost [their] father in the most violent public way.”

Well said, Fetterman—well said.

You know, Couric could have preserved whatever decency she had left and kept this dumb assertion to herself, but she couldn’t care less that two kids lost their father “in the most horrific way.” All she cares about is ensuring he is fully condemned—and there is nothing more illogical than that.

“I think some people might say Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric was extreme,” Couric claimed. “You know, I think that’s the conversation that happened. People condemned political violence, but they also felt a great deal of discomfort with his language, suggesting that these kinds of words lead to violence. I don’t know. I’m just kind of sharing my observations as I saw the conversations unfold.”

She’s got a lot of nerve claiming Charlie’s rhetoric was so “extreme” that it contributes to political violence when he was the one who was violently killed. This is an unsurprising low from a typical leftist, as they often resort to victim-blaming. However, what makes this especially worthy of condemnation is that she’s attacking him after what happened. It’s truly abhorrent—a level of moral low that only the most unethical leftists would stoop to.

Disgusting—just disgusting on her part. And, unsurprisingly, entirely predictable.

- YouTube www.youtube.com